3 ms·
I don't see how. Working as intended would be "And then the gamedev landscape is dominated by open-source tools because you can't make closed-source tools in-ho
by PoignardAzur 5y ago
I don't see how. Working as intended would be "And then the gamedev landscape is dominated by open-source tools because you can't make closed-source tools in-house without giving up on the ecosystem." This is very much not the case today, the market is dominated by closed-source engines (sorry Godot).
Seeing as that scenario didn't come to pass, the only result is a net loss of games that could have been made (or made cheaper) by reusing Carmack's code and instead weren't. Maybe some of these games would have been proprietary, but it's still a net loss that they weren't made at all.
- malka 5y agoI m sure it is a net loss for people who could have benefited from free work indeed.
- scrollaway 5y agoI don't think you understand Gp's point that this in turn results in a net loss for everyone else.
- malka 5y agoPeople are not entitled to games created by free work. So it is not a 'net' loss.
- scrollaway 5y agoNot entitled? Correct. Not a loss? Incorrect.
- malka 5y agoif you want to use this argument, then the end of slavery was also a loss for users.
- scrollaway 5y agoOk, Im flagging your comments, you clearly have no interest in a real discussion and are resorting to troll bait.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- malka 5y agoFeel free to do so.
- nmz 5y agoThey are if the license allows for it.
- benhurmarcel 5y ago> for people who could have benefited Users?